unsubscribeCancel a subscription by id. Ownership is enforced — you can only cancel your own subscriptions. The row is deactivated (not deleted) so its historical events stay available via recent_alerts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Subscription id (uuid) returned by subscribe. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant value beyond annotations: it states ownership enforcement, that the row is deactivated not deleted, and links to 'recent_alerts'. This expands on the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) without contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences: first states the core action, second adds crucial behavioral details. No unnecessary words, perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, side effects, and relationship to 'recent_alerts'. Nothing more is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' is fully described in the schema (uuid returned by subscribe). The description does not add new information about the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Cancel a subscription by id', a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'subscribe' (creates) and 'list_subscriptions' (lists), and adds that the row is deactivated not deleted, clarifying the exact effect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: ownership is enforced and historical events remain via 'recent_alerts'. It implicitly advises using this tool only for owned subscriptions, but does not explicitly exclude misuse or mention alternatives beyond 'recent_alerts'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap), and the massive mix of unrelated domains (Polymarket betting, general data lookup, AI visibility) alongside UK Parliament tools makes selection confusing. An agent would struggle to know whether to use ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, or ask_pipeworx_grounded, or which of the five polymarket tools fits.
Most tools use snake_case with readable names, but the action placement varies (verb_noun like get_bill vs noun_verb like bet_research, entity_profile), and there are compound names like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence. The style is mostly consistent but the verb_noun pattern is not uniform across the set.
38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority are unrelated to the server's stated UK Parliament purpose. Only 7 tools (get_bill, search_bills, bill_stages, get_member, search_members, search_hansard, recent_divisions) have anything to do with Parliament, making the count wildly inappropriate for the apparent scope.
The Parliament-specific surface is thin: basic bill/member/Hansard lookups exist, but there are no tools for specific divisions/votes, committees, publications, or detailed procedural information. The vast non-Parliament tooling is irrelevant, creating a dead end for any real Parliament research beyond the basics.